decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
because it never should have got to the Jury in the first place | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I think if the facts are clear enough
Authored by: pem on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT
He can rule "no reasonable juror can find x."

I would like to believe that if he takes it upon himself to rule this way, it
will favor google. Personally, I think a reasonable juror could easily have
found for fair use, and only Oracle's masterful misdirection would allow any
other finding.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

because it never should have got to the Jury in the first place
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:18 AM EDT


plaintiff dissembled(lied) in pre-trial about the nature of the work and need
for abstraction/filtration.

Everything since that revalation has been a busted attempt to rescue the show
from being a complete waste of every ones times.

I fail to understand how they have not dismissed the Jury.

They already know they have one juror who is a) biased (her husband has patents)
and b) is incapable of obeying court instructions (she is using her husband to
decide for her)

Add in the dissembling and this is frankly no more than a farce now.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )